$65,000 to $75,000 for a good one with reasonable engine hours would be about right.

Then see if it is up to date with the X-rays and airworthiness directives???

That rather expensive machine is, I believe, from the Tulsa area and although a UK built machine has had extensive work carried out to make it look like a Canadian one. Looks beautiful but must have cost a bundle.

I know of another UK built one that had a Lycoming conversion and a non Canadian bubble canopy fitted and it went for around $40,000. Engine was high time and many odd modifications had been made to it.

I believe the machine for sale on Barnstormers is an original Canadian built machine, Serial 147-185. It originally carried the RCAF number 18019.

It only has about 2,100 hour total time on the airframe which is not uncommon for Canadian models, as many were sold by the RCAF in the early '70s with 1,500 to 2,000 hour total airframe time.

The Canadian built aircraft do not have any AD's related to the spar carry-through or the wing attach bolts and there is no requirement to track "fatigue hours". There is also no requirement for x-ray of gear components.

I am not aware of Canadian built Chipmunk that has sold for under $100,000 in the last several years.

I have been off the grid for a couple of weeks. You are quite correct about the Tulsa machine. I believe the same guy owns both the Canadian one and UK one converted to Canadian?? Makes mine seem valuable all of a sudden.

As for the various expensive inspections on the UK ones most of them appear to be a "make work" program of Bae!! The carry through mod doesnt seem to have any valid history until Bae got one and bent it into submission. Then they did a fine job of making the new carry throughs some of which had to be bushed to rectify the poor machining, and also lowering the life!! We are all now stuck with the "fatigue index" reporting issue!!

When the machine first came to the UK DH made the decision to change the cant/slope of the landing gear to prevent nose over accidents. Good idea, and then they used some garbage metal in the castings that according to a Bae letter that I have a copy of, states that the "casting can crack on the shelf"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The same letter also states that the castings could crack all the way though and the surrounding structure will support the airplane for any landing other than a severe hard one!! DH Support has managed to get that AD extended from its original time, but any dealings that they have with the CAA costs money. What we tend to forget. me included, is that DH Support are not an aircraft manufacturer where budgets can be funded by the manufacturing of later products. So any dealings Bill Taylor has with the CAA has to be funded.

A lot of the inspections and materials called for are outdated and were only used in the UK. The statement at the end of most AD's stating "or alternative means of compliance" would make life a lot easier for us in the various colonies, but I understand that the UK CAA are the problem as they want lots of money for any change.

The tail strut AD should be a one time inspection, internally treat and seal the drain holes, but we still have to repeat it???

It is not for me to ask for an AD but the TNS that calls for the x-ray of the tailplane front spar is in fact an AD for our friends down under, under their rules. They also have a modification that can be fitted and that cancels he TNS/AD.

The Canadian airplane is a good machine that Bae had nothing to do with hence the lack of AD's and extra inspections. Bill Taylor once asked me "why didn't you buy a Canadian one then"?? 'Cause there wasnt one stood here or I would have!!

We still have wonderful airplanes wherever they were built, and with this group we can overcome most of the problems. Snows nearly gone so away we go!!!

The tail strut AD should be a one time inspection, internally treat and seal the drain holes, but we still have to repeat it???

It is not for me to ask for an AD but the TNS that calls for the x-ray of the tailplane front spar is in fact an AD for our friends down under, under their rules. They also have a modification that can be fitted and that cancels he TNS/AD.

BrianIs there a way to stop having to x-ray the tailplane here in Australia? I just had mine done, even though it is not flying, and would like to avoid the necessity of repeat x-raying it in the future.John